November 26, 2012

There were 19 names to choose from, and Marco Rubio got a clear plurality, which was not surprising. What was surprising was Rand Paul at #2 and Scott Walker at #3. Have people heard that Scott Walker does not have a college degree? Could that possibly work? (I know I was disparaging college in another post this morning.)

Chris Christie is down at #10, with only 2 votes — including mine — and he's #1 on the list of who would you least like.

In 2008, the least wanted candidates for bloggers were…John McCain and Ron Paul.

In 2012, the least wanted candidates for bloggers were…Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

So, going by those results, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush would have to be considered the early favorites for 2016 based on the fact that conservative bloggers don’t want either of them as a nominee.

82 comments:

Chris Christie has some other issues, I like that he speaks his mind. But he pushed to ban fraccing in NJ, killed an LNG project which would have brought natgas to the NY market, and he has generally ruled against business in some other instances which tell me he does not understand how free markets work.

Chris Christie has some other issues, I like that he speaks his mind. But he pushed to ban fraccing in NJ, killed an LNG project which would have brought natgas to the NY market, and he has generally ruled against business in some other instances which tell me he does not understand how free markets work.

Sarah Palin. But it won't be the Republican Party, which is rapidly going the way of the Whigs. Sarah as the presidential candidate of a genuine conservative party, call it the Tea Party. Ya know, the crazies who will be needed to put the pieces together again after the coming liberal induced catastrophe.

Have people heard that Scott Walker does not have a college degree? Could that possibly work?

For a Republican? I don't think so. For us non-WI-ites, what's his story for not either going to or finishing college? If he dropped out to care for his terminally-ill mother, maybe he can turn it into a positive. If he just dropped out to 'find himself', then not so much.

I knew he didn't have a college degree, but that's not why I didn't pick him.

Why would anyone need a young adult's credential to judge the merits of someone who has been a state governor? There should be plenty of evidence as to whether or not he's qualified in his statements and his record.

I answered a poll that I was sent. It wasn't about me controlling how RWN would frame its selection criteria.

"Chris Christie has some other issues, I like that he speaks his mind. But..."

I picked him because I think he has good image and expression. He can hone the issues. I guess he has the same governor-of-a-liberal-problem that Romney had.

"For a Republican? I don't think so."

I think it's a vulnerability that will be used against him. Also, I don't think he has a big strength in the area of expression. He's earnest and hard-working in a way that's too modest for the big stage. I don't think Americans really get the midwestern demeanor. But then, I'm from the east coast. I get the style of Giuliani and Christie and so forth.

ricpic, that's not my feelings. I like what Walker had done in Wisconsin and I'd consider him a strong candidate with a REAL track record. I'm just saying that he would get pilloried in the press for not having a degree. Just think of all the ways they'd extrapolate conservative views from his supposed 'lack of education'. The Dems would faint to think of what the Europeans must think of us now, electing someone without a *gasp* college degree.

I think Walker's a very credible candidate, but I also think he'd have to spend a lot of campaign time rebutting Dem charges around his education. Look at the last election; how did we lose spending 3 months on government-provided contraception?

(Note: I'm not saying that all college experience is worthless. Some colleges help students think more deeply and develop broader perspectives. [I plan to send my own children to college.] I do think, however, that such colleges are the exception rather than the rule. I also think there are other ways that that mental life can be created.)

My first choice, from the long list, was the sole vote for Bob McDonnell. I think I chose him first as a non-senator who wasn't Chris Christie or Jeb Bush. I didn't choose Scott Walker because he needs more time in the governorship to consolidate his bona fides.

As noted in comments above, I think Chris Christie has some other issues as well.

The person who might be the most electable is not the person who would make the best president. Of course you can't govern if you don't win. I'm intrigued by Bob McDonnell. He might be both a good candidate and a good president.

"Conservatives" don't have a good track record in presidential elections. Although they usually revere Ronald Reagan and tend to unfavorably evaluate any and all republicans as unworthy conservatives, I'm not sure Reagan would have passed their sniff test. They do well in Talk Radio and writing.

If he's a libertarian I'm going to vote against him, purely out of spite. Luckily Ron Paul is finally retired so we don't have to accommodate him at every election and pretend he matters. And it's my hope libertarians keep voting for the Gary Johnson's of the world. They should be a marginal third party for the next 50 years. Note I'm referring to Libertarians not libertarians.paul Ryan was a libertarian with a small l. He and people like him I will continue to vote for, warts and all.

My last comment is that the next GOP candidate, whoever it may be, needs to deflect weak-ass charges from the left and the press, and then go on constant offense about the Dems' awful performance, and not be on defense about shit like how old the earth is. In that light, Chris Christie becomes a much more compelling figure.

Maybe, just maybe, we should stop letting the MSM pick our candidates? They are going to savage them when the time comes anyway, so why not nominate someone that actually appeals to the conservative base? Someone that isn't afraid to stand up and say, "This is what I believe, and why." Someone not afraid to call BS on the media and go over their heads to speak to the American public.

Not incoherent at all, but certainly spiteful. Before the election the question was will the evangelicals come out for a Mormon. They did. Those that didn't come out were the libertarians. Not all libertarians, but a sizable numer of them. Who felt it was time for them to make a principled stand make the perfect the enemy of the good. I won't soon forget that. F them.

In July of this year, this reporter recalled to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) that in his first Senate race back in ‘02, he lost to Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson by a much-disputed margin of 524 votes and that Libertarian Kurt Evans drew more than 31,000 votes. Did Evans spoil the race for Republican Thune in favor of Democrat Johnson, I asked?

“No doubt about it,” Thune shot back without hesitation. “He ran to the right of me. I remember when (Evans) came in to tell me he was going to run and I said ‘you know Kurt, it’s going to be a really close race. You could be the difference in this.’ And he said ‘I’ve been called by God to do this’ and I said “I understand. I can’t tell you not to do this. I’m just telling you as a practical matter that in a really close race in this state, that whatever you take away is coming out of our vote total. But he went ahead and did it anyway, so you’re right.”

Put another way, Republicans in virtually every state appear to do their utmost to discourage a Libertarian from entering contests. But it is difficult—if not impossible—to find Democrats who wish the Libertarian candidate were not on the ballot or included in debates.

Its quite simple. Small libertarians will not waste their vote on the Libertarian running at the time, since they know it's a wasted vote. Libertarians though with a capital "L" are retarded and thus keep making a principled stand that costs them everything and gains them nothing.

1) It's a fallacy that all Libertarians would have otherwise voted Republican. In many pre-election polls, Libertarian candidates actually drew more voters from the Democratic candidate. And of course, someone who's fed up with the 2 major parties enough to vote Libertarian may well have just not voted at all in a strictly 2-party contest.

2) The races you cite made no difference in control of either house of Congress or the Presidency. So whoopee.

You and I have conversed amicably, but I can't sit here and not raise my hand, however mildly, when you call me out. Count me as a small-l libertarian who consciously, and with a full heart, withheld his vote from Romney. Actually, you might know that, as I was pilloried here, and slandered, by some, for that. For the record, I didn't vote for the Libertarian candidate, but for Virgil Goode.

Now, im not trying to be combative, but to answer you. And one answer I would offer is this: consider that Reagan and those in his era, and even the. GOP in the 90s, didn't face the same problem. The question is, why?

I submit to you that a significant number of folks are tired of being snowed and lied to by the GOP about small govt. "trust me, we're really your friends!" They say. Well, the credibility has run out.

Whose fault is that?

I know; you're going to say, but you got Obama. But the thing I beg of you to consider is this: as far as I am concerned (and I think a lot of other folks are concerned), its the same destination, the only difference is speed. I'd you were going to be cooked alive would being cooked slowly really be better?

Actually, I am not so fatalistic as that. I truly believe we'll be more likely to defeat statism without Romney than with him. But I reject the notion that I owed him my vote. He owed me. He didn't deliver.

Look, you had hope in Romney; then if you voted for him that was coherent. I had no hope in him; in fact, had he won, I would have been truly depressed. Now, I think we have better chance of winning. Nothing is certain.

People analyze these things differently. Sometimes there is no translation. But know this: I did not refuse to vote for Mr. Romney out of spite, but with great deliberation.

Nominating Rubio in order to win over Hispanics and appeal generally to grievance mongers is a pipe dream. Think more, dream less. Stop sucking up.

Paul Ryan FTW? I love Bobby J. but he's just too nice and I'm sensing the squishiness inherent in having to govern a disaster area. Same with Christie. Hey, maybe they could run together as the Twin Hurricanes. Compare and contrast: FEMA response times, with and without interference on the play from stupid Dem governor, and whether that actually mattered in the long run since FEMA is itself stupid. Resolve: Is the Red Cross actually helpful? Study: The long term impact of ignoring state level infrastructure maintenance for years in order to divert funds for political purposes. Decision: Chocolate City Convention v. Atlantic City Convention.

Fr. Fox,Maybe it is right in the long run to hang tough for purity, honesty, goodness, etc. We'll see. It's just that this is politics we're talking about here. Only the ones who know (Ron Paul) they're going to lose (Gary Johnson) are pure. And they're not really. They're just in a position to be ostentatiously moralistic about it. When you have to govern, as Mitt Romney did, as Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal do, etc., you find yourself having to make compromises, choose the lesser of two evils. That was all that was asked of you (and everyone else) in this election. Mitt Romney is an honorable, intelligent, good and decent man who would have been an excellent steward for the economy and the nation in general. But you wanted purity. I don't think that was the right call under the circumstances.

Calypso wrote:1) It's a fallacy that all Libertarians would have otherwise voted Republican. In many pre-election polls, Libertarian candidates actually drew more voters from the Democratic candidate. And of course, someone who's fed up with the 2 major parties enough to vote Libertarian may well have just not voted at all in a strictly 2-party contest.

2) The races you cite made no difference in control of either house of Congress or the Presidency. So whoopee.

3)) The races you cite made no difference in control of either house of Congress or the Presidency. So whoopee.

Somewhere, in whatever locality that dem won they are now governing over that libertarian and enacting democrat policies, that most likely mirror Obama style policies. How did the Libertarian help themselves. And all those people living where those 9 elections were lost by libertarians, they should get a nice big thank you (and a spit in the eye)from people NOT so inclined to live under big govt who now have to because of those libertarians.I have the same visceral reaction to Buckley's kid after he willingly voted for Obama. Him turning around saying he learnt his lesson after the first go round doens't make me hate him any less. It makes me hate him more.

Ok, well the libertarians who wouldnt vote Republican anyway I could care less about and would probalby not hold them in high esteem ANYWAY. I'm talking abouth the libertarians that would.As to the rest, it's quite apparent that libertarians are one of the reasons we have an Obama presidency. And certainly its apparent that in those 9 races they gave the seat to a democrat.Insofar as the libertarians in question were arguing for smaller govt, how did they achieve their aims by getting more dems into power? I'm thinking of libertarians who might root for a Ron Paul. YOu can't tell me, that even as bad as Romney was that he was worse than Obama to a libertarian. And if so, then they don't really believe waht they espouse. Ron Paul ran on the Republican ticket. He was in the debates as a Republican.

And of course, someone who's fed up with the 2 major parties enough to vote Libertarian may well have just not voted at all in a strictly 2-party contest.

Then don't vote at all. Its always going to be a 2 party contest. pick the party that at least provides you SOME of what you're looking for. And if you can't find it there, then why are you made at me for telling libertarians to go f themselves? You're pretty much telling me I shouldn't rely on them for elections. So when new candidates crop up expressing their libertarianism that there is a red flag to me that they are saboteurs, and all those voting for them are either not going to vote for the ticket anyway or are fair weather friends. So why would I want them to be the dandidate of choice next time out?

3) You quote a guy's remembrance of the 2002 election as proof of ???

As proof of a libertarian costing an election or nearly costing an election and giving the seat to the dem, despite not having a chance in hell of winnig.

I have a friend who's a Ron Paulian libertarian and he was asked who republicans should have put up in place of Romney and he said Ron Paul. He actually though Ron Paul could win agianst Obama. Ron Paul couldn't win against Romney or even Herman Cain. He then, after posting endless anti Obama posts on Facebook, and slogans about small govt and how Obama care is tyranny and what not, and then goes out and votes for Gary Johnson. Who got how many votes again? And then its back to the anti Obama big govt is evil schtick. I actually think my friend is the bigger idiot than the liberals who voted for Obama.

FR Martin Fox wrote:For the record, I didn't vote for the Libertarian candidate, but for Virgil Goode.

Now, im not trying to be combative, but to answer you. And one answer I would offer is this: consider that Reagan and those in his era, and even the. GOP in the 90s, didn't face the same problem. The question is, why?

I submit to you that a significant number of folks are tired of being snowed and lied to by the GOP about small govt. "trust me, we're really your friends!" They say. Well, the credibility has run out.

Whose fault is that?

With all respect, i have to ask, who's virgil Goode? YOu know who he is? Barack Obama.

You made the perfect the enemy of the good, and so accepted the bad. So again, enjoy your wasted vote.

You KNOW that Barack Obama is not your friend, and you also KNOW that if the person going against Obama doesn't win that you will be disappointed with 4 more years of Obama so you vote for... the guy no ones ever heard of and had no chance of winning. Explain the logic of that.Here's another argument. If Reagan came out today, you'd probalby find plenty of thnings about him that would disappoint you.You're making the perfect the enemy of the good, and as I said before let the bad win. That's stupid.

Fr Martin wrote:Agreed. How many times must people bite the same apple, and throw up, before they say no more?

YOu could say the same about your support for third party candidates. How many times are you going to waste your vote because the perfect Ronald Reagan isn't on the ballot before you realize that it's wasted and stupid vote.

Dems learned this lesson when some of the more foolish voters decided, decided to vote for Ralph Nader. They then got Bush. Most didn't make that mistake again.Libertarians seem to make that mistake over and over.

FR Martin Fox wrote:Look, you had hope in Romney; then if you voted for him that was coherent. I had no hope in him; in fact, had he won, I would have been truly depressed. Now, I think we have better chance of winning. Nothing is certain.

I guess you're trying to do the rope a dope. (emphasis on dope). Here's the thing though. You have to win some rounds when doing the rope a dope, otherwise someone is just punching you while you lean against the ropes.And sorry, there is certainty. The certainty that you will get 4 more years of Obama. Enjoy it, and please don't complain.

FR Martin Fox wrote:The GOP has given us a whole train of barges of BIG GOVERNMENT.

And Obama gave you even bigger govt. Romney argued that he would try to shrink govt spending. You have the certainty that one won't and you have the bitter taste in your mouth of past experiences with the other party, but at least the potential that he will not dissapoint like the others. Plus, if he were in charge, and had the House he could be held to his promises from people like yourself and me. Now, you're left with the CERTAINTY that you will get exactly what you don't want.

FR Martin,I'm sorry if you think I"m being mean.I'm trying to tell that making the perfect the enemy of hte good and thus getting the bad is not a smart move. Neither is cutting off your nose to spite your face.Im arguing in good faith with you too. If i came across as too personal then I apologize.

FR Martin Fox wrote:Look, you had hope in Romney; then if you voted for him that was coherent. I had no hope in him; in fact, had he won, I would have been truly depressed. Now, I think we have better chance of winning. Nothing is certain.

And I would argue that getting Romney woudl be getting the foot in the door to get what you want achieved. You'll now have to wait four more years to even have a chance to compete. What will change about the republican party that will make you not remember the past? What if the candidate isn't perfect in every way? Four more years again?

Jeb Bush will make a fine GOP nominee in 2016. His father was a good President and his brother was not, but .500 is a pretty good batting average. Plus, sibling rivalry might encourage him to elevate his game. I welcome him!

And certainly its apparent that in those 9 races they gave the seat to a democrat.

No, it isn't. At all.

Look, JR, I actually agree with you to the extent that a person in a competitive district who would have voted for a Republican but voted Libertarian instead may have helped elect their LEAST favorite candidate.

But that's not what you or the article you posted said. It only said that in 9 races nationwide (out of what, 500?) the Dem won over the Rep with a margin of votes fewer than the Lib candidate received. There is simply no way to extrapolate from this information that Libertarian voting cost the Republican the race without making enormous and likely false assumptions.

A RINO is still better than a hard leftist. So your choices are the bad option or the worst option. The best option is not avaiable. (referring to this election not potentially future elections).If you decide to go off on a tangent and choose the best option even though it's not a realistic option and has no chance of coming to fruition than rather than accepting the bad option you in fact allow for the WORST option.A RINO may be a RINO, but he is beholden to his constituencies. If Romney continues to act like a RINO, he can be voted out. He can be kept to his conservatism by people like the tea party holding him to account. Take but one example. Obamacare. Many of the provisions had yet to be implemented and wouldn't till after the election. You had only one candidate that said they would do anything about Obamacare. So, if you don't vote for the one guy who even expressed a desire to do anything about OBamacare, then you'll get the candidate who brought Obamacare into being in te first place. And make it that much harder for future Republicans to undo the mess. Further, there are republicans in the House who have tried to overturn Obamacare. Even if he is a RINO, do you really think Romney would work against the House to undo Obamacare? That stretches all credibility. But getting Obama in for another four years means that those parts of Obamacare yet to be implemented that culd have been avoided, will now go through. Take taxes, take energy. There were fundamental differences between Romney and Obama, and if youre a conservative, one of those positions would be appealing to you and one wouldn't. Even if the messenger is flawed, at least he's still preaching the message. The other guy wasn't even pretending to preach the message, and will give you exactly the opposite of what you wanted (unless you're a liberal in which case you got exactly what you wanted)

So, you WILL get fooled again, OVER AND OVER. The bottom line, Obama is in the office. You had a chance to do your part to get him out,and you didn't. So enjoy Obama for the next four years.

Calypso wrote:But that's not what you or the article you posted said. It only said that in 9 races nationwide (out of what, 500?) the Dem won over the Rep with a margin of votes fewer than the Lib candidate received. There is simply no way to extrapolate from this information that Libertarian voting cost the Republican the race without making enormous and likely false assumptions.

I think you can reasonable say that the libertarian did swing the election to the democrat in those 9 cases. What those 9 cases are Im not sure.But I don't want to lose ANY races.Especially when people are supposedly voting for their interests and instead allowing the person least likely to act in their interest to vote instead.

Now, if they woudn't vote Republican anyway then we have to question how much Republicans should rely on libertarians as a member of their coalition. if not, then we shoudln't waste time on them anymore but get them out of the tent. My assumption though was that libertarians by and large vote Republican because they are into small govt.They just got, not bigger govt but BIGGEST govt. There is zero excuse, in my opinion, for any libertarian to vote third party at that moment in time unless they thought that the Libertarian had a chance of wining. Did he?

I think you can reasonable say that the libertarian did swing the election to the democrat in those 9 cases

I know that's what you'd LIKE to say, and it's an interesting hypothesis, but it isn't supported by anything you've mentioned or shown so far. A Democrat can cull through the same data, come up with a number of races in which the Republican won by a margin of votes fewer than the Libertarian vote total and make the same claim. In Colorado, for instance, there was significant concern among Dems about voters crossing over to vote Libertarian in conjunction with the legalized pot referendum.

Let me change tack and ask you this: what part of the GOP platform would you change to "get [Liberatarians] out of the tent"? The pretense of fiscal responsibility? Or something else? How will whatever change you posit garner more GOP votes?

Calypso,Right now were about to face the fiscal cliff, and I'm SURE you are going to hold repubs to account if they don't toe the line and not raise axes.They are in that position though because Romney is not president. Ok?There would be a different outcome if he were. So whatever you think liberatiarians gained by not voting for the squish you're going to lose by making repubs the party that only holds the house.Whereas, if they held the house and presidency, I don't care how squishy Romney, he wouldn't be holding republicans over a barrel.So there was a pronounced difference, and libertarians (who didn't vote Romney, but who normally vote Republican) shouldn't then give lectures about republicans caving when they're put in an u tenable position.And if you really cared about fiscal responsibility, you wouldn't vote for the guy who has no chance of winning, when the outcome is republicans will then find it much harder to,be fiscally responsible because they only control the house.Squish or no, if the repubs hold the house and the presidency, Romney is not going to demagogue republicans about not raising taxes on the rich. He would have the bully pulpit AND the House and could have used the bully pulpit to marginalized DEmocrats.

FR what's his face offers weak sauce and then gets offended that I think he's a retard.

Calypso wrote:Let me change tack and ask you this: what part of the GOP platform would you change to "get [Liberatarians] out of the tent"? The pretense of fiscal responsibility? Or something else? How will whatever change you posit garner more GOP votes?

if they vote for the guy who CAN'T win at an election of this magnitude, then they are not serious about fiscal responsibility. And are not reliable as voters.

My guess is, as soon as the next election rolls around they're going to flake out again because the republican nominee isn't pure enough. And we'll get yet more Democrats. Are democrats pure enough for you libertarians?

Or as willy wonks told Charlie: It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir! Though actually you do get something. You get statism and biggest govt. so maybe you win!No, you lost.But keep pretending.

JR: Obama's margin over Romney was bigger than the entire Libertarian vote in EVERY STATE he won. So even if your fallacious argument about all Libertarians being Republican voters otherwise were true, it would have made no difference in the presidential election.

if they vote for the guy who CAN'T win at an election of this magnitude ...But you haven't even tried to address my questions. If you are a Republican who just lost this presidential election, you can be angry at those who voted Libertarian (even though those votes would not have changed the outcome of the presidential race), but what you really need to address is not who needs to get OUT of the party, but how do you get more people IN?? What political positions are you recommending that the GOP take in the next election that at once are unwelcoming to Libertarians but draw MORE people into the big tent?

you lost. But keep pretending.WE, both of us, lost. With a winning margin greater than all other candidates combined. How do WE change that? In your world, we wait for a shittier Democratic candidate, I guess.